We are in a new

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: no4% picked this

   Academics in business schools have no practical business experience that

   The author doesn't have to assume that business school professors have ZERO practical business experience that's valuable. The author is only complaining that business schools too often teach hypothetical cases and academic theory. But that's could just be a choice of the school heads who set curriculum. That wouldn't necessarily indicate that the academics at these schools have ZERO practical business experience of value.

   4%
2. B

   Too Strong: only3% picked this

   Academics in business schools deal only with hypothetical situations in their

   The argument said that trainees in business too often find themselves studying hypothetical cases instead of real ones. This answer is making it seem like they only deal with hypotheticals.

   3%
3. C

   Too Strong: incapable Weakens13% picked this

   Academics are not capable of teaching curricula suitable for relevant

   This answer has that "ruling out" with not/no form that so many correct answers have. If we negate this, does it become an objection? Academics are capable of teaching suitably relevant management curricula? That would actually strengthen the author's argument. The answer, as written, is weakening the argument, because the author's plan for business execs to set relevant curricula and then for academics to teach it. This answer makes it seem like that latter part of the author's plan is not feasible.

   13%
4. D

   Flip a Fact Unknown Comparison8% picked this

   Academic training outside of business schools is more responsive to the needs of business than is

   We only talked about what was happening inside business schools. We know that they are not very responsive to the needs of business schools, but that doesn't mean that other people are more responsive. It's possible that no one is responsive. If I say "children raised in Wyoming are afraid of the dark", does that imply that, "children outside of Wyoming are less afraid of the dark than are children in Wyoming"? Heavens, no! It's possible that all children are afraid of the dark. So why did I single out Wyoming, then? No reason, I just felt like it. That's my prerogative as a speaker of truths. I'm allowed to do that. I'm allowed to say "people who were born in Delaware are Americans." That doesn't mean I'm also saying "people who weren't born in Delaware aren't Americans". Necessary Assumption is famous for these Flip a Fact answers.

   8%
5. E

   Correct72% picked this

   Today’s business executives have valuable insight into business that academics in business schools

   Why this is right

   This is a surprising correct answer to me. If we negate it, it does seem to weaken, though: Today's business execs don't have any valuable insight into business that academics in business schools don't already have. It makes the author's proposed solution seem like more of a dumb one. If business execs don't have some special insight to contribute, then why do we need them to set curricula that can then be taught by academics? If I were hating on this answer choice, I would complain that the author was not necessarily saying business executives were needed for their insight. We could interpret the paragraph to mean that the author thinks business executives are just needed for their willingness to study real cases rather than academic theory. But there doesn't seem to be a better answer worth fighting for. And since the author is thinking we're just using the business execs to set the curricula (but academics will still teach it), the author seems to think we need the business execs in order to get the curricula right. And that presumes that they have some valuable insight that academics lack.

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   72%